Emanuel Garrett Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Labor Action, Vol. 13 No. 51, 19 December 1949, pp. 1 & 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Last week, in London, 261 delegates, representing close to 50,000,000 workers in 53 countries, created a new organization of world labor, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. (ICFTU).
With the total Stalinization of the World Federation of Trade Unions, it became impossible for organizations not under Stalinist domination to remain in the WFTU. Few did, and none of any consequence after the withdrawal of most non-Stalinist unions from the WFTU. A world center pledging the cooperation of unions dedicated to “free unionism” – that is, unions which will not tolerate dictation from the state, unions free to act as the representatives of labor – has, accordingly, been in the making for at least a year, and actually for longer than that.
Working men and women, especially those who are truly responsive to the links of international brotherhood that bind workers of all lands together, will rejoice at the founding of the ICFTU and look forward to its development as a genuinely potent force for FREE labor, and the freeing of enslaved labor.
The full text of the conference decisions is not yet available. However, what the press has reported of its constitution indicates, in that respect anyway, an auspicious beginning. It is to be hoped that some of the signatory unions take the document seriously enough to practice what it preaches. Thus, it is reported that the constitution affirms the right of labor to “trade unions which shall -bq free bargaining instruments and which derive their authority from their members,” affirms the right of labor to social justice and security, affirms! that workers cannot be free unless they have the “democratic means of changing their government,” and calls for mutual assistance to labor everywhere in defying “totalitarian infiltration.”
These are basic principles and it seems to us safe to say that the new organization will be accorded the allegiance of workers to the extent that it effectuates these principles.
As reported in the press, there was apparently only one major difference of opinion among the conferees. That difference, which threatened to stymie the conference in its preliminary stages, concerned the Catholic Trade Unions which, though affiliated to a Catholic international, asked admission to the ICFTU.
Strong objection to their admission came from the socialist unions, notably those of Belgium and France, to whom the problem of Catholic unionism is a very real one and whose objections are well founded in experience as well as principle.
Their argument is a simple and incontestable one. Religious unionism is in contradiction to free unionism. More specifically, the Catholic unions were created as dual unions to the free unions, are guided ideologically by Catholic Church policy, not labor policy, and serve in effect to divide the working class along religious lines, thereby sapping the strength of a united working class.
The socialist unions of the continent were adamant – until the U.S. delegation put the pressure on for a compromise which was eventually accepted by the conference. The U.S. delegation, in which Walter Reuther of the UAW-CIO and David Dubinsky of the ILGWU-AFL, were leading spokesmen, proposed that the Catholic unions be admitted on condition that they disaffiliate from the Catholic trade union international within two years. The Catholic unions seem to have agreed.
However much the socialist unions were right in the matter of principle, there are important realities which condition the circumstances of the debate. The Catholic unions of today, in countries like France and Italy, are not simply like the unions which were set up by Vatican assignment in the pre-war years. The ravages of Stalinism in the working class have served to change somewhat the aspect of the Catholic unions and the chaos spawned by fascism and the war.
In some instances, at any rate, they have served as a channel for the repudiation of Stalinism, and an avowal of free unionism. In the process they have become; in significant cases and apart from their religious aspect, legitimate spokesmen of labor’s choice.
Moreover, in a country like France, there is a large secular sentiment in the Catholic unions (that is, a sentiment for their disaffiliation from church connections), and the action of the conference may strengthen the hand of this already substantial and progressive wing. Given, for example, the condition of the French working class and the need for winning that section of the union movement which is still in the hands of the Stalinist totalitarians, a fusion of the anti-Stalinist unions seems essential. This necessarily includes at least some of the Catholic as well as the socialist unions.
In Italy, when; the non-Stalinist, socialist unions are relatively weak, it is manifestly impossible to cut off, or to cut oneself off, from that sizable section of the working class which adheres to Catholic unions. As in France, the need exists to merge these unions into unions that are free in every sense, but that is something that can only be accomplished in the life of working class action. It may well be that the process will be speeded by collaboration in ICFTU.
The compromise, thus, may prove to have been justified by the situation. There is nevertheless one aspect of acceptance that is not too healthy. The ability of the U.S. delegation to put over its proposition, regardless of its merit, reflects altogether too much the relationship of the U.S. to the rest of the non-Stalinist world. The union, unfortunately, seem to mirror the relationship between governments.
Wealthy, strong U.S. unions did not encounter too much difficulty in having their way. Were it simply a matter of weight of argument, there could be nothing said in criticism of this. But was it simply argument? It Is.for example, reported that the independent Italian union center is so limited in its resources as tp require the financial assistance of such’ unions as the ILGWU. Nothing wrong with that at all; it is one part of international cooperation. But did they feel compelled to vote the way Dubinsky thought they should? If so, then there is a lot wrong with that – and the ICFTU can flourish only “to the extent that it combats any such tendency.
In its latest issue, the Labor Leader, organ of the Association of Catholic Trade Unions, applauds the compromise. (The ACTU does not attempt to form unions, but insofar as it organizes union men, even though within the regular unions of the working class, along religious and therefore divisive lines it has been opposed by progressives in the American union movement.) The Labor Leader particularly commends Walter Reuther for his role in drafting and effecting the compromise and takes particular delight in the thought that the action of the compromise may prevent the socialists from exercising the leadership in the new labor federation.
ACTU is fully justified in applauding the decision of the conference, for the problem was not simply one of trade unionism, or the inclusion of all anti-Stalinist unions into a new world federation. International politics is the decisive element in the situation, and here one must recognize the fine hand of the State Department. Several things point themselves up at once:
The “principled” considerations of the European labor leaders, who undoubtedly understand some of the motives of their American friends, were somewhat tempered by their own interests: they knew they could not successfully prevent the inclusion of the Catholic unions, given the American stand, but evidently agreed to it provided some safeguard were given to them, such as the compromise provided. This allots them to maintain their “leadership,” grants the Americans their wishes, and at the same time permits them to expect, quite logically, continued material aid from the U.S., either directly to the countries which they represent; or to the union movements which they control.
The socialists have, of course, no automatic authority to assume leadership. Such authority can arise only in the demonstration that socialist leadership is superior to all others. If the authority of the socialist unions is questioned in the working class, it is only because their leaders have not always acted as the champions of the working class that they should be. We have in mind, for example, the socialist unions of France which have all too often appeared in an unsavory light. Socialists in our view rightfully belong in the leadership of a world federation of unions – though obviously not as the exclusive leadership. The leadership ipust perforce be a blend of the complexions of the various national components. We trust that by their actions, the socialists will grow in authority and raise the prestige of socialism in the eyes of the international working class.
In the meantime we welcome, as we think must all people who believe in the existence of free and vigorous unions, the new ICTFU. By binding the workers in its compass into an effective instrument of free unionism, it can dp much to invigorate labor’s confidence in its own strength, and to stay the hounds of reaction on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
Emanuel Garrett Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 9 December 2022